The Hockey News just did their annual Future Watch issue, surveying scouts from every NHL team and asking them to rank the best prospects in the game. Is Nail Yakupov still seen as the cream of the 2012 crop?

The top-three of Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray and Alex Galchenyuk remain intact, though Galchenyuk slides ahead of Murray according to the scouts THN talked to. The magazine’s stated criteria for Future Watch is to rank players by who will be the best NHL’er in five to 10 years; despite Yakupov’s struggles adjusting to the NHL he’s seen as the guy who will ultimately emerge as the best of the lot.

Other big moves:

Defenceman Slater Koekkoek, the 10th overall pick by Tampa Bay after a brilliant but injury-shortened 2011-12 campaign, received no votes in Future Watch. Thus far this season, Koekoek has 29 points in 42 games and a minus-24 rating. Fellow blueliner Cody Ceci, who went 15th overall to Ottawa, also missed out – he has 62 points in 67 games and a minus-10 rating.

Seventh overall pick Matt Dumba – who briefly contended for the top consensus ranking on the blueline early in the 2011-12 season – saw his stock fall too; if the scouts THN talked to redid the draft today, he’d fall to 17th. Derek Pouliot (8th overall) and Griffin Reinhart (4th overall) saw smaller drops, each falling seven spots in the new rankings.

Jacob Trouba and Mikhail Grigorenko both made big strides, with Trouba rising from ninth overall to fourth in these rankings, and Grigorenko rising from 12th to sixth despite unimpressive stats in Buffalo.

The biggest jump came for Russian star Andrei Vasilevski, who has excelled in consecutive World Juniors (and is playing lights-out in Russia). He jumped from 19th overall on draft day to 10th overall in these rankings. Eight spot jumps were made by forwards Scott Laughton and Stefan Matteau, defenceman Olli Maatta, and goaltenders Malcolm Subban and Oscar Dansk.

Jonathan Willis is a freelance writer.
He currently works for Oilers Nation, Sportsnet and Bleacher Report.
He's co-written three books and worked for myriad websites, including the Edmonton Journal, Grantland, ESPN, The Score, and Hockey Prospectus. He was previously the founder and managing editor of Copper & Blue.

So statistically speaking, since they're both scoring forwards.. and Yakupov in his first season already has 1 more point, then Mueller the I am not a rookie.. That would make him better.. correct.. because he has more points.. in a league where scoring is the most important part.. Hmmm.

How friggin good are both of these guys compared to that Granlund kid??? WOW!

This is what losers do, all mired in a slumber of imperfection and micro statistical analysis. +/- is more of a unit performance, team play, moreso than the solo value of some players obviously struggling their first few yrs in the league.

5v5,+/-,Save%, team goal differential, yada yada yada. Kids are expected to struggle, it's the all too familiar on again off again veteran support on this club. Pin the tail on those donkeys.

It's way too early to say definitively but Yakupov was the consensus pick and I remember most fans wanted to draft him. I like Galchenyuk too but it would be difficult to take somebody who played so few games in his draft year 1st overall. There were some people in the Murray camp and his injury is unfortunate but his ceiling is much lower than Yak's anyways. Hindsight being what it is, people will question this decision from time to time but Yak was the best prospect back then and still seems like the best prospect in that draft today.

Extrapolating from a small sample size can be dangerous, DSF. For example, Yak was +2 last night in Colorado. Assuming he has turned the corner on his defensive play, and thus projecting last nights performance over the rest of the season, that translates to a +/- of +33, or over an 82 game season, +101. Real meaningful. As meaningful as your projections.

So statistically speaking, since they're both scoring forwards.. and Yakupov in his first season already has 1 more point, then Mueller the I am not a rookie.. That would make him better.. correct.. because he has more points.. in a league where scoring is the most important part.. Hmmm.

How friggin good are both of these guys compared to that Granlund kid??? WOW!

Yeah Yakupov with his Brett Hall shot and Mike Modano is just killing it.

Since Huberdeau has more points than both, I guess the argument is settled.

Extrapolating from a small sample size can be dangerous, DSF. For example, Yak was +2 last night in Colorado. Assuming he has turned the corner on his defensive play, and thus projecting last nights performance over the rest of the season, that translates to a +/- of +33, or over an 82 game season, +101. Real meaningful. As meaningful as your projections.

Oh, I think comparing rookie seasons gives us a little bit of insight.

While the sample size is small it can help to illustrate that things can go up (Stamkos) or down (Mueller) in subsequent years.

Was Yakupov the right choice?

Maybe, although if its' at all close you should always pick a centre over a winger.

I think OIlers should have been drafting for need last year. It's not like Crosby was an option on the podium.The need was a center and defense , but they took BPA, because someone else made the pick for them ! Not eash to acquire a stud ctr, or d- man.

Anyone know what Stamkos' scoring was over his first 26 games? I seem to remember him having a wicked second half...

These comparisons are useless so early into someone's career. Yak's career could be like that of a Kovalchuk, or a Yashin or anywhere in between. We don't know. All we know is that the kid competes extremely hard, has a wicked shot, and can't play defense.

Jeff Skinner had a better stats his rookie season than Stamkos or Tavares did in theirs. Does that mean he's the better long term choice?

And I assume so have you. It doesn't mean that your opinion is invalid. In fact, if scores of people with your penchant for stats and critical thinking came to a consensus I'd be inclined to listen to it.

And I assume so have you. It doesn't mean that your opinion is invalid. In fact, if scores of people with your penchant for stats and critical thinking came to a consensus I'd be inclined to listen to it.

Yes I have.

But, when a draft pick is being lionized while others are outperforming him is a little daft.

Early days to be sure but I doubt Yakupov will be a more valuable player than Galchenyuk.

The Oilers had to pick Yak. He broke Stamko's rookie scoring records with Sarnia. He may have been older when he did it, but still. Also, the Oilers could sse what he could without Gally. They didn't get a good look at Gally without Yak or Gally in his draft eligibilty year at all.

We armchair scouts have no skin in the game, if we did, we likely would have pushed Yak.

You may be right, but that doesn't mean that it was the wrong pick. (is that an oxymoron?)

What I mean is that on draft day there were dozens and dozens of experienced professionals with the tools to analyse player performance. Most of them pegged Yakupov as the top available candidate. Many admitted that Galchenyuk was probably on the same level, but that it is hard to have that kind of confidence in a player who missed so much of such an important development year. Yak was closer to a sure thing. A known entity.

The choice, I imagine, came down to positional need vs. "sure thing". They chose the more proven player. Fine with me. If Yak busts, or Galchenyuk goes super-galactic I'll be annoyed and pissed off, but will try to remember that I, along with most of the hockey world were behind Yak as the first overall pick.